Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rectification for mistake

Legal area

Court

18 Jan 2023

WOON THEAN MUN v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA27/2018

The Court found no failure by the presiding officer to investigate that caused injustice; the Tribunal's factual findings that the contractual renewal formalities were not complied with, that the contemporaneous documents were recommendations and that the alleged makers lacked authority were unassailable on a point of law; late emails were inadmissible as fresh evidence on appeal; alternatively even if renewal were assumed clause 4 permitted three months pay in lieu so claimant suffered no greater recoverable loss; appeal and summons dismissed.
3 Nov 2022

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1287/2020

Clause 35(c) was validly included by the solicitors entrusted by both parties, was not the subject of rectification for mistake, the payment of HK$100,000 after the expiry of the clause did not waive or estop the plaintiff from exercising the unilateral contractual right to rescind, and the plaintiff validly rescinded by letter dated 4 August 2020; consequently the plaintiff must return the deposits with interest and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
4 May 2017

LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK

Citation

LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2016

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant did not establish an accidental omission or that the court's manifest intention required correction under the slip rule or inherent jurisdiction; material factual disputes about the parties' intentions and alleged double counting were unresolved and the correct forum for those disputes is fresh proceedings for rectification or substantive relief, not a summary amendment of a sealed consent order.
6 Jul 2016

IN-T WORKSHOP LTD v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

IN-T WORKSHOP LTD v. BOX DESIGN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1176/2015

The court held it had no jurisdiction in the present proceedings to amend or set aside a perfected consent judgment where the consent order evidenced the parties' bargain; the slip rule does not apply to correct parties' contractual draftsmanship; where a consent order embodies an agreement the proper remedy to challenge it for mistake is a fresh action (or other appropriate proceedings), not a summons in the same action. The court nevertheless found on the merits that the consent order did evidence a common mistake and would have rectified it if it had jurisdiction, but refused relief for la…
29 Apr 2011

BAUHINIA CATERING MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. HEUNG SAI KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

BAUHINIA CATERING MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. HEUNG SAI KIT AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5561/2006

No enforceable oral agreement or implied term allowed the Staff Club to retain 26% of the LPG supplier discount; Plaintiff did not waive or acquiesce to the deduction; when the Staff Club contracted with the LPG supplier and collected discounted sums it acted as a fiduciary vis-à-vis the Plaintiff and therefore must account for the profits; judgment for Plaintiff for the identified overcharge and restitution.
4 Mar 2005

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

Citation

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4511/2002

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities, with sufficient cogency, that he communicated and established an intention to reserve an enforceable power of revocation or the other pleaded conditions to the trustees or their solicitors; contemporaneous documentary and witness evidence did not support resulting trusts at the time of transfer/allotment (except one share held by the 1st defendant), so LARCO s6(1)(c) did not invalidate the transfers; accordingly the declarations of trust stand and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed save for a declaration that the 1st defendan…
2 Apr 2002

EDWIN JOHN PHILLIPS v. SA SA INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

EDWIN JOHN PHILLIPS v. SA SA INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5190/2001

The court held that the Call Option Agreement's entire agreement clause, by its wording, was capable of superseding and cancelling the prior oral undertaking concerning exercise of the option; however, it was arguable that an estoppel or a deliberate agreement to omit and conceal the oral term could prevent the defendant relying on the clause. The pleaded case as drafted was deficient but not hopeless: leave to re‑amend to plead estoppel in the specific terms indicated and to plead mistake/rectification with particulars was granted; the fraudulent misrepresentation plea was struck out.

Hong Kong Case Law

WOON THEAN MUN v. HONG KONG AIRLINES LTD

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

LCKLM nee CKLM v. LWK

IN-T WORKSHOP LTD v. BOX DESIGN LTD

BAUHINIA CATERING MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. HEUNG SAI KIT AND OTHERS

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

EDWIN JOHN PHILLIPS v. SA SA INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.